By a 3-2 majority, the court also declined to grant constitutional protection to civil unions and adoption rights for queer couples, noting that mandating the state to grant recognition or legal status to some unions will violate the doctrine of separation of powers and could lead to unforeseeable consequences.

“This court cannot make law; it can only interpret it and give effect to it. The court, in the exercise of the power of judicial review, must remain clear of matters, particularly those impinging on the policy which falls in the legislative domain,” the verdict said.

The Constitution bench—comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S. Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli and P.S. Narasimha—was unanimous that the right to marry was not a fundamental right, and said it was beyond the remit of courts to issue a positive direction to the legislature to characterize same-sex marriages and queer relationships through a new instrument of law.

“The directions or orders of this court cannot encroach upon the domain of the legislature,” said the unanimous view of the bench, noting that Parliament and state assemblies have enacted laws creating and regulating the sociolegal institution of marriage under the Constitution.

But the two sides differed on two key aspects—recognition of civil unions, considered the world over as the first step towards granting full marriage equality, and adoption rights.

The ruling crushed the hopes of some 20-odd petitioners who had approached the top court arguing that not recognizing their relationships denied them material entitlements that their heterosexual peers enjoyed, and this violated their constitutional rights.

“We are deeply disappointed by the judgment today,” said Supriyo Chakraborty, a petitioner.

The verdict in the landmark case began on a hopeful note for the petitioners as Chandrachud and Kaul read out concurring judgments decrying discrimination against queer couples, recognizing civil unions and affirming the rights of LGBTQ+ people to adopt.

But over 100 minutes into the pronouncement, it became clear that the two judges were in the minority when jBhat and Kohli concurred on their judgment and justice Narasimha read out his separate verdict.

“It was a roller-coaster of emotions for us. I was on the phone with my family, and one moment we thought we had it, and the next it was despair,” said Sameer Samudra, a petitioner.

The focus will now shift to a high-powered committee—chaired by the Union cabinet secretary—that the government promised to set up during the hearings to examine an array of concerns affecting the rights of non-heterosexual couples and take corrective measures.

The minority judgement set out the terms of reference for the panel—medical, jail visitation and financial rights, as well as questions of succession, maintenance and pensions—and said the recommendations shall be implemented through administrative orders. However, the majority judgement confined itself to the formation of the panel.

Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who spearheaded the Centre’s opposition to legal recognition for same-sex couples, welcomed the verdict.

“Exciting news! Mint is now on WhatsApp Channels 🚀 Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest financial insights!” Click here!

Updated: 18 Oct 2023, 12:14 AM IST